About your Search

20100101
20100131
STATION
CSPAN2 76
LANGUAGE
English 76
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 76 (some duplicates have been removed)
than on helping patients stay healthy and get better. and medicare has done a terrible job of that over the years in terms of paying for preventive services has not done that over the years. this is -- it is now december and the way the system is broken is, my busiest time as a surgeon in wyoming is at the end of the year, people who met their deductibles, who have insurance, come into the office and say it's time for my operation, i have to get it done before the first of the year because of my -- my -- my deductible. it has been used up. and i want to have my operation that i'm not going to have to pay for. we have the incentives all wrong, mr. president, in this country in terms of health care. so we do not health care reform. but i don't think this bill is the way to do it, which is a government takeover of the government system in america. mr. baucus: mr. president, i've got to address that one. my colleagues want to speak. i think it's worth repeating over and over and over again. this legislation is designed to retain uniquely american solution to health care, roughly half publi
medicare's future. when families are scraping to pay their medical bills, fraud, waste and abuse in our healthcare system are simply unacceptable. so today the president has asked us to put criminals on notice. the attorney general and i have convened this unprecedented summit featuring leaders from the public and private healthcare sectors because we believe the problem with healthcare fraud is even bigger than government, law enforcement or the private industry can handle alone. we'll need all of us working together to solve it. in the fight to prevent, find, catch and prosecute the crooks, we want every good idea we can get. everyone here has something to offer because healthcare fraud is a national problem. it affects federal programs like medicare, state programs like medicaid and private insurance companies. we're all vulnerable because we're all part of a healthcare system that's undergoing rapid growth. between 1970 and today, america's annual healthcare spending has gone from $75 million to over $2.5 billion. that's produced significant benefits for patients but it's also creat
't know the exact number but clearly with the body of medicare of 55 and over we are going to pick up two or 3 million more. now you've got the program operated by the opm and you have a bye in there of several million people. there's a provision most people haven't focused on which is a state can set up a separate program for people, government-run between 133% of poverty and 300% of poverty and any number of states will essentially do that. finally in all probability the exchanges are going to be run by the states. so, as that system comes forward you've got a bigger medicare, bigger medicaid, the fixed rates other components which are going to have negotiated rates. the bad news is going to take four years, five years to get this up and operating so i'm not sure there's going to be a lot of changes. but i think we have to start thinking how do we bring those together? it may be that medicare and medicaid are dictating rates for the groups that are negotiated. >> if we take that as a presumption we are going to see something built i would like you to respond what we were talking about h
in social security and medicare. cuts in social security an medicare. i would simply say to them, look at where we are. look at where we are. social security and medicare are both cash negative today. the trustees of medicare say that medicare will go broke in eight years. social security will take somewhat longer. but both are on a path to insolvency if we fail to act. mr. president, it hasn't just been from the more liberal side of the spectrum that the criticism has come. also on the right. "the wall street journal," ran this editorial calling the debt reduction commission or the deficit commission a trap. they say it is a trap that will lead to higher taxes, to more revenue. so on the left and the right we have those complaining that if you move forward to deal with the debt, you're going to make reductions in programs and you're goi i think that's undeniably the case. if you're going to deal with this debt threat, we are going to have to make changes in the spending prowewewewewe are goine changes in the revenue base of the country. i would suggest for those who are concerned abou
. in 2002 under the employee initiative the centers for medicare and medicaid services began publicly reporting quality information on nursing-home nationally on their web site. this was followed a year later by a similar effort in the home health arena. simultaneously there have been demonstration products by medicare in home house and skilled nursing facilities. state medicaid agencies have begun experimenting with a for performance in the nursing-home setting. the question is how these current market-based reforms address these broad goals of long-term care. in theory these reforms are perfectly compatible with these goals of improving quality of life and reducing fragmentation and increasing community-based services but there are several key attributes of these market-based reforms that may limit their effectiveness in this regard. the first limitation is current market-based reforms tend to rely on narrowly defined clinical quality measures. this tends to reinforce a medical model of care which pays more attention to clinical quality than issues related to quality of life and a c
but clearly with a body in medicare 55 and older you're going to pick up two or 3 million more. now you've got the program operated by opm. you will have a body in there of probably 7 million people. there's a provision most haven't focused on which is the state can set up a separate program for people, government-run, between 133% of poverty and 300% of poverty. i know a number of states will essentially do that and then finally, in all probability the exchanges are going to be run by states. so as the system comes forward you've got a bigger medicare and bigger medicaid that fixed rates, other components which are going to have negotiating rates. the bad news it's going to take four or five years to get this up and operating so i'm not sure there's going to be a lot of changes. but we have to start thinking how we bring this together. it may well be medicare and medicaid are dictating rates for the other groups that in fact negotiate. >> if we take that is the presumption we are going to see something, bill, i would like you to respond to what we are talking about here. but there's also the
the expansion includes higher taxes, includes medicare cuts. it also at the end of the day, according to the congressional budget office, does very little for most people in this country to actually reduce the cost of their health care insurance. in fact, what we've seen through the studies that have been done by the c.b.o., the congressional budget office, by the c.m.s. actuary is for most americans they are going to see at best their health insurance premiums stay the same and if you're in the market, go up. the health care bill is an example of this runaway federal spending. in the latter part of that debate, we got a response from the c.b.o. to a question that was posed by the senator from alabama, senator sessions, with regard to how the accounting is done on medicare. because one of the arguments that we heard throughout the course of the debate is that it would extend the life span of medicare. in fact, when the c.b.o., the the question was posed of them: what happens with this additional medicare tax and these medicare cuts that would be imposed upon providers and on senior ci
's developed and directed a number of national programs, including the center for medicare education, the better jobs, better care national program, funded by the robert wood johnson foundation and atlantic philanthropy. she was a political appointee during the clinton administration, serving in the u.s. department of health and human services as deputy assistant secretary for disability, aging and long-term care policy. she also was assistant secretary for aging in 1997. she's been a senior researcher at the national center for health services research, and at project hope center for health healthy communities fares previously, as well as -- health affairs previously, as well as at georgetown university. to begin, let's welcome to the podium, steven kay. >> some people focus on specific federal programs, or they might focus on quality issues or work force issues or family care giving, and they also tend to focus on specific population, such as the so-called frail elderly, on non-elderly people with disabilities or cognitive disabilities. as carol levine said in her article in this i
and they controlled my blood pressure and everything and does not cost me one time. i could be on medicare but i chose not to progress have been within the day since i have gotten out of the service in 71. but why are all of these test being run? i know it cost money. >> host: they do. testing and that has been a regular theme of yours with the regular habit -- article how to get to the point* where doctors, all on test that they say even are gold-plated? >> yes. your caller hit the button driving the process on the malpractice system which is driven in ways, an example. headaches. one community actually tried to look at how many ct scans in cedar rapids speed 13 for a population of 300,000, we all know this is not necessary. 10,000 were forehead ct scans only a tiny number turned up any abnormal -- abnormality some of them were ordinary headaches. some of it was fear of malpractice and more significant is that we have not established what the process is or a proper a guideline for care for handling the headache so we can do it the right way. we have tens of thousands of unnecessary ct scans that are
. it doesn't cost me a dime. i could be on medicare but i chose not to do it. i've been with the va since i got out of the service since '71. but why are all these tests being run and i know it cost money. >> host: thank you, dean. in fact testing and how much doctors has been a regular theme. here's one headline article, testing, testing, testing and how doctors are calling for a lot of tests they sometimes they say are gold plated more than they need? >> guest: your caller did hit the button which is our malpractice system which is driven in ways -- so let me give you an example. headaches, one community actually trade to look at how many ct scans in cedar rapids iowa they were doing for people. they found they were doing 52,000 ct scans. all of us know this isn't necessary. and 10,000 of them were for head ct scans. only a tiny number ended up turning it up any abnormallity. many of them were just headaches. and a more significant part of it is that we don't -- we have not really established what our process is, our appropriate guideline for care for handling the headache so that we can
%, the medicare payroll tax. that's a job killer. so there's a relationship between job creation and taxes, economic activity and, therefore, revenues to the federal treasury and tax rates. tax rates and taxes are not the same thing. you can reduce tax rates and actually collect more taxes. again, it sounds paradoxical, but it's true. think of this when you go to the store before christmas and they slash their prices by 40%. they're not doing that to go out of business. they're still making money. they're making more money on the volume that increases because a lot more people coming into the store even though they reduced the cost of each of the items than they would if they increased the cost of each of the items. i guarantee if they raised their prices before christmas, their competitors would reduce their prices. not to make less money, they would get more people in, make more volume. and make more money. when you -- so i'm very reluctant to support a commission which i believe will undertake to reduce our deficit by raising tax rates. it's not good for job creation. it's not good for
, too, is an entitlement. we tend to think about social security and medicare, medicaid as being the entitlements of great concern to us. interest on the national debt is truly obligatory, it has to be paid, it's an entitlement in the strongest sense of the word. our witnesses last week suggested we need some target thes. we don't need to be out there doing ad hoc things, we need some target to shoot at, and they were suggesting we try to bring the deficit down to 3% of gdp and bring the debt or at least hold it to no more than 6% of gdp. are those reasonable goals? do you think they're too level, too high, too tight, too strict? >> so, again, mr. chairman, it's not our place at cbo to suggest what your goals should be. economists don't have any analytic basis for saying, this is the crucial point in terms of debts or deficits. it is true that as we push in this country to 60%gdp at the end of this year and beyond that over the next few years, we're moving into territory that most developed countries stay out of. we are moving into territory the that is unusual in our historical
that passed, there was a massive savings expected in medicare i believe estimated 5 billion over the first few years and $1 trillion over the first 10 years of full implementation and 3 trillion over 20 years of implementation. that was transferred from the medicare savings are used to expand the other activity of the government's, specifically the expansion of medicaid and the new entitlement that was in the bill. if those dollars were used which were saved for medicare to shore up medicare and in some manner manner, in a medicare reserve fund to pay down debt, could you give us a thumbnail estimate how much that might help correct the structural problems that we have? >> i cannot do quantitative acquisition in my head by you're watching is correct that we estimated almost 500 billion in medicare savings over the 10 year projection point*. and over time if they not separately quantify. >> let me combine a question come if you did not use it to expand the government but instead to shore up the medicare system by reducing fed debt wouldn't that have a significant positive the event for medicare
to pay for its medicare expansion and my state didn't? james q. wilson also wrote in his essay that respect for the law of unintended consequences is -- quote -- "not an argument for doing nothing but it is one," mr. wilson said," for doing things experimentally. try your idea out in one place and see what happens before you inflict it on the whole country," he suggests. well, if you'll examine the "congressional record," you'll find that republican senators have been following mr. wilson's advice, proposing a step-by-step approach to confronting our nation's challenging -- challenges 173 different times during 2009. may i say that again. republican senators during 2009 173 different times on the floor of the senate have proposed a step-by-step approach toward health care and other of our nation's challenges. on health care, for example, we first suggested setting a clear goal. that is, reducing costs. then we proposed the first six steps toward achieving that goal. number one, allowing small businesses to pool their resources to purchase health plans. number two, reducing junk
for people on medicare and did not pay for it at all. it has a cost of like a trillion dollars over the next 10 years, the medicare drug benefit will, which is about the cost of a health benefit so. these people just have no credibility whatsoever when they complain about deficits. host: your book is about the failure of supply side economics, of reaganomics, as w with a look back to and in chapter two, the triumph of keynesian economics. guest: well, i observed there was a real problem that the existing orthodoxy couldn't handle, the new philosophy, the supply side philosophy came into existence, was implemented, appeared to be successful, and then hence forth, it was applied in every circumstance, whether it was justified or not. so you had kind of a cycle of success and failure. and as i thought about it, i realized the keysnenian economics had gone through exactly the same cycle. it had been implemented in the 1930's, helped end the great depression, but then misapplied in the 1950's and 1960's and gave us inflation. so it seemed there was a similar tree that was interesting, and i tried
, what are entitlements? medicare, social security, veterans benefits, things that cannot be controlled that if you're entitled to them, you get them. and you look at interest on the debt is what -- is 5%. if you look at discretionary defense, it's 18%. and if you look at everything else the federal government does that everybody talks about: education, agriculture, justice, education, the 22 departments in homeland security, it is just 16% of what is spent. so if you add together the 50% and the 5% of interest, you see 55% of everything the federal government spends this year cannot -- cannot be controlled. you have to spend it. and so all the rest that's discretionary is rather small in comparison. if you project that out ten years -- and i must tell you, new numbers are coming out tomorrow, so this is the latest number that i have -- entitlements go up to 56% and interest on the debt to 14%. so that is 70% of everything that is spent in the year 2019 if things are projected forward cannot be controlled. discretionary defense is 16% and nondiscretionary -- again, everything else -- 14
setting these sort of silos that have been created certainly with medicare and medicaid. and that end up resulting in poor quality of care in many ways for patients. that's one of the reasons why we wanted to, you know, advocate for a bundled pavement and there's lots of talk these days of bundling of payments and there's some real advantages to doing that in terms of, you know, creating more flexibility for meeting residents needs in this case so if you could -- you could bundle post-acute payments and payments for long-term supportive services and end-of-life care payments we think that would go a long way in terms of giving more flexibility to facilities and meeting needs. >> david? >> no, i'd just second what haiden said in terms of rationalizing benefit needs whether it's post-acute and chronic care in the nursing home to, you know, end-of-life care separating them out in different benefits. what we propose intagrating them in bundled care. >> let's take a question right over here, please >> gary, now with attas research. it's really a comment on this last report. which i have to sa
, and medicare and private insurance had to pay for all this waste. all i am trying to say is that if you are going to put primary- care physicians in, you have to teach them to know what they are doing rather than to rely on specialists to get the answers. host: great, thank you. we have a la -- a lot of callers waiting. guest: what she is describing is the world. struggling with in edmonson. -- had the world we are struggling with in madison. we cannot know it all. we have been unwilling to admit that. we've been trained to get the idea that it is all going to be in our head, and we have not developed the systems in the place that can change that. it is why i ended up writing on something as mundane as developing a checklist across madison. we look at the aviation world and how they handle themselves, the skyscraper world, and we found the the first principle of successful conditions of complexity is for experts to admit to themselves that they are fallible, that they will fail at times, it will not remember everything, and then to build in those standards of practice, the checks on the
or not the government should take over 1/of our economy, slash medicare by half a trillion dollars, raise taxes by half a trillion dollars and drive insurance rates up for the most of the rest of our country and i think we heard a large and resounding message yesterday if one of the most, if not arguably the most liberal states in america. the people of massachusetts spoke and spoke loudly. one concern i know a imin of you had about the outcome of this election would be whether the new senator would be seated. i'm convinced now that no gamesmanship will be played by the other side with regard to future votes in the senate. senator jim webb, made it clear he will not participate in any additional health care votes prior to senator brown being sworn in. and i noticed that elected officials in massachusetts who were principally responsible for certifying election after earlier saying take up to two weeks, indicated it could be as soon today. i don't believe the kind of thing we've seen on full diswith the corn husbander kick back, the louis purchase, the gator aide, drafting the bill behind closed doors,
wanted system in which seniors don't have these huge gaps in their medicare prescription drug coverage. [applause] and where medicare itself is on a sounder financial footing. those are the things that we are fighting for. and i am not going to stop on them because it is the right thing to do and by the way, if you are serious about reducing our deficit and debt coming cannot accomplish it without reforming our health care system because that is what is gobbling up more federal dollars than anything else. i don't understand folks that say they don't want to see government spending under control and then are fighting controls at the congressional budget office says would cut a trillion dollars off our deficit over the next two decades. [applause] those aren't my numbers. now, we are never going to stop fighting to cut waste and abuse in washington. we do have to reign in death of his-- deficits that been accumulating. families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. it is time for the federal government to do the same and that is why i propose specific
taxes and to reduce medicare outlays so that the sandwich that is produced, spending increases and revenue sources, as far as the cbo's rules are concerned that they have to cost out to develop a whole. they tell you what the individual components are, but the headline that comes out is that the legislation as a whole will not add a dime to the national debt indeed will reduce the national debt. but i wonder if anybody really believes that medicare outlays are going to be reduced by $500 billion over the next several years. after all, while getting ready to enact that provision, congress and of course that doesn't start for a few years, congress passed grade now been repealing previous legislation, which would have cut medicare payments to physicians by more than $200 billion. finally there's the issue of increasing health care costs. i think the obama administration and peter or his bag in particular have correctly identified increase in health care costs as a major problem for families, for businesses and for the fiscal viability of medicare. and we know that the key cause of
a trillion dollars over the next ten years, the medicare drug benefit law, which is about the cost of the health benefit. so these people have no credibility whatsoever. >> host: your book is about the failure of supply-side economics, it starts with a look back at fdr. why did you start there? >> guest: my basic idea was that it observed that supply-side economics had gone through a cycle where there was a real problem that the existing orthodoxy couldn't handle. the new philosophy came into existence, was implement, appeared to be successful and it was applied in every circumstance whether it was successful or not. so it was cycle of success and failure. and realize the canessan economics went through the same cycle. it was imcomplemented in the 1930s, helped end the great decision, and then misapplied in the 1950s and 60s and gave us inflation. so there was a symmetry that was interesting, and then i tried to ask, well, what's going to come next? >> host: that's where i'm going to ask you, what comes next? have we come full circle to an kensyaan economics. >> guest: as i was fin
like social security and medicare. but it was a proposal that both republicans and democrats, i hoped, would like enough to move forward. the spending problem we have, mr. president, is like a cancer, and this chamber refuses to seek any treatment. and while i did not like the proposal completely, i at least supported it because i knew we needed to do something. our spending is out of control. we have a $12 trillion debt. the deficit of last year was was $1.4 trillion, more than the past four years in the bush administration combined. now, i am new to this chamber, so the bizarre still seems bizarre to me, and perhaps the longer you're here, bizarre starts to seem normal. but we cannot spend more than we take in. we cannot continue to amass a debt that our children are going to have to pay for. right now, we have to go borrow money from countries like china because we can no longer raid social security and medicare because those programs now need those dollars to be paid out. but at some point, this country is going to have to pay the piper. at some point, we're going to have to drama
over the next ten years, the medicare drug benefit will, which is about the cost of the health benefits. so these people just have no credibility whatsoever when they complain about deficits. post ogre book is about this a deli or of supply-side economics as reaganomics as it has been known. starts with a look back to fdr. in a chapter to the triumph of keynesian economics. >> guest: my basic idea was that i had observed the supply-side economics had gone to recycle where there was a real problem that the existing orthodox couldn't handle the new philosophy, the supply-side philosophy, came into existence was implemented come appeared to be successful and then henceforth it was supplied in every circumstance, whether was justified or not. say what kind of a cycle of success and failure. and as i thought about it, i realized that keynesian economics have gone through exactly the same cycle. it had been implemented in 1930's, helped and the great depression, but then was misapplied in the 1950's and 60's and give us inflation. so it seemed to me there was a cemetery here that was interest
dollars cut from medicare, you're going to look at blogger lines and less coverage. we know we need to reform pricing and it's something we are doing shortly but today we will have a one-size-fits-all plan in congress is going to come down here in massachusetts and heard what we have, that is one of the difference between martha coakley and ipt were talking to a trillion dollar health care plan, half a trillion dollars in medicare cuts at a time we just needed. i would propose actually going and allowing the states to do it individually with the government incentivizing it. similar to what we did here. we could export out what we've done and show them how to do it, so i'm looking forward to having the opportunity to be the 41st vote and make sure that we get that back to the drawing board. >> this coakley. >> thank you comedy for hosting us these evening. i would be proud to be the 60 votes to make sure we get health care reform we badly need. we've taken the lead in massachusetts and getting it to be in short and now we are attacking costs to make sure we provide for transparency a
and medicare and medicaid were all attacked in their own time as the end of america's way of life. and are now for the most part a cherished part of the social fabric of america. and it remains because in massachusetts, the state that has already adopted a similar healthcare program, not even the republican senate candidate who voted for the massachusetts plan would speak against it. this year we will also work hard to enact legislation to build our energy independence. and create clean energy jobs. we'll push for final passage of wall street reform to bring accountability back to our financial sector. that bill would protect americans from some of the most abusive practices that led to the economic crisis. keep taxpayers off the hook for future bailouts. to the too big to fail firm and safeguard our entire economy from another collapse brought on by wall street's most reckless gambles. energy legislation and regulatory reform are both powerful actions on behalf of working families. it goes without saying that in the majority -- if the majority ruled in the senate, america would be closer to e
in washington on massachusetts. cutting half a trillion dollars from medicare you're going to look at longer lines, lesser coverage. we know we need to reform pricing as a member going to be doing very shortly. but do you think were going to have a one-size-fits-all plan in congress is going to come down here in massachusetts and hurt what we have here at that's one of the differences between martha coakley and i peered were talking about a trillion dollar health care plan, have a trillion dollars of medicare cuts at a time when we just don't need it. i would propose actually going and allowing the state to do it individually with a government incentive i senate. very similar to what he did here. we can actually export out and show them how to do it. i'm looking for to having the opportunity to be the 41st about and make sure that we get that plan back to the drawing board. >> ms. coakley? >> thank you, david. thanks for hosting us this evening. how would be proud to be the 60th vote to make sure we get health care reform that we so badly need. we've taken a major massachusetts and getting e
't have one. we have a quasisystem. we have medicare and medicaid. half of medicare expenditures, half of all health care expenditures. if you look to those programs basically to put it simply the involve massive subsidization of everybody. the government tries to subsidize everybody in keep the price below what they would pay in the market. what happens is, it is sort of elementary. if you subsidize something you get more of it. went to get more of it you get big explosive demands and eventually the government has to put a cap on that and then you get government rationing. when that happens to get lines and who is going to go to the top of the line? i will tell you who is going to get to the top of the line. we know this. people like me. people have connections, people who are knowledgeable, people who can gain the system. who is going to go to the bottom of the line? poor was virginian so if you want to be there this is not a fair system. now, to do this we will need to talk about what a feasible alternative, what it will market-based insurance will look like for goody will meet to t
are, elderly, or late middle-aged because of the pattern of our wars. most will qualify for medicare anyway. the va has excess capacity. it soon will have a whole lot more excess capacity. as the last the world war ii generation and korea war pass along. . . dicare is about two-thirds. so this is a triple winner. open up the va to the vets who can use the medicare entitlement not only that, open >> let them buy into the system. does not only makes clinical sense, an 80 year-old veterans, they're both going to have to learn to take care of each other, but it makes financial sense because every person you get off medicare into the va, you save may be about a third. and patient satisfaction is incredibly high. so that's my case. for what we've got to do, not just about agent orange situation, but getting our veterans ride in general. thank you. [applause] >> well, thank you everyone for your remarks. i want to open it up to questions from the audience. at first i just want to ask a few myself. and the first is, that it seems like both in vietnam and in the united states, this is sort of
and in the '60s to got medicare and medicaid so there have been moments of the history when the people and their desires and their anguish over this situation has broken through and then we got legislation that moved away from the traditional class, upper class legislation of the government. but he is extremely important to understand this conflict of interest between government and us. otherwise you will think, and the young guy going off to war will think bush's interest is the same as mine. it is not. nor is exxon's interest the same as mine. nor-cal burton's the interest the same as mine. no, it is a very important thing to learn i think from history. and when you learn, when you study the history of the united states, you did not see the kind of country that we all learn about when we go to school which is a kind of exultation of america. we are not different by the way from other countries. countries everywhere teach their history in nationalists ways. they are all prideful of their flag in their anthem and hewn know their history in the united states is no different. except we a
is being pushed in washington on massachusetts, spending $500 million on medicare? we know we need to reform and that is something we're going to be doing very shortly. to think that we need of one size fits all plan from congress, coming down here and hurting what we have? that is one of the differences between martha coakley and i. at a time when we just do not needed. i would propose going and allowing states to do this individually with the government incentivizing it. we can export what we have done and show them how to do it. i am looking forward to be the party -- the 41st vote and get that plan back to the drawing board. >> thank you for hosting us here this evening. i would be proud to be the 60th vote to make sure that we need health care reform that was so badly need. we have taken the lead here in massachusetts, and now we are attacking the cost to provide competition and transparency to bring the costs down. we spent $2.60 trillion on health care in this country. we do not get our money. we do not have transparent terry -- transparency in competition. we do not have th
for the part d medicare, which they snuck through in the middle of the night. i watched it all night. i'm a democrat. but i listen to fox, i listen to glenn beck, kennedy, o'reilly, chris matthews, keith okayer ton. i listen to it all. i didn't have the best of circumstances when i came up. i didn't graduate high school. but i went back and got my high school diploma and got a job. they sent me to school. >> right. >> caller: and the constitution says that i hear you keep talking about the constitution the constitution says this the constitution says that. the constitution never said that huh to have farming to take care of anybody houses, the constitution never said that you had insurance on cause if you want to have a cause. >> host: hey, james. we're just a little tight on time. what would you address michael steele to address? >> caller: why did they lose the race in maryland if he was such a great listener? >> well, you know, governor ehrlich and i did the unthinkable. we won after 40 years of having democrats in maryland, the last republican governor before ehrlich was sparagnon.
middle-age because the pattern of the war. most are going to qualify for medicare any way. the va has excess capacity. soon it's going to have a lot more excess capacity. it is less the world war ii generation and the korean war passalong. it's also been a winning for a decade now has literally offering the best care anywhere on metrics ranging from patient satisfaction to the use of information technology, evidence based medicine. anybody remotely acquainted with the quality of literature on health care the last decade would know the va has the best care anywhere. also, although it is hard to get a card number it appears the cost per patient as compared to medicare is about two-thirds. so this is a triple winner. open up the va to the vets who can use the medicare entitlement not only that, open it up to their wives, let them buy into the system. this now makes clinical sense but 8-year-old veteran scott more bdy with their wife, they have to take care of their tether to the coverage of the buttocks sense because every person of medicare and to the va you have saved about one third a
program. the medicare advantage program, medicare part b program, health care systems of switzerland or the netherlands arguably also germany contain many of the elements of the exchange. the health alliances are not which the clinton health plan wailled or exchanges. as were in our state based and private purchasing cooperatives which have been tried repeatedly and sometimes with success over the past two decades. the connecticut business industry association represented here today by mr. vogel represents a successful private purchasing cooperative. the of course will each model can be called an exchange they are in fact quite different. indeed the models represented by the house and senate bills are different in very significant ways. the focus of my paper and of my brief presentation this morning is on how the house and senate bills differ and on which model is most likely to result in the exchange the serbs' best the goals that an exchange is intended to fulfill. first, quickly let me ask you the question why do we need an exchange, what do we expect an exchange to accomplish. th
of the provisions the closing of the doughnut hole, that's how much the people on medicare have to pay out of pocket for their medication. we want to close that gap so people don't have to pay that much. we do it in the house of representatives, and so that was i think a lot of the conversation. so it isn't super yet. >> host: recovered a town hall meeting with stupak in michigan he talked about his amendment on abortion. it's part of the house legislation. did that come up last night and what is the fate of that do you think? >> guest: eight date. the pro-choice caucus which i'm part of, which has well over 100 members in the house of representatives and wide support throughout the country reproductive health care being part of any package. it came up last night in the context of those of us who are pro-choice believe that we ought to stick with the status quo that says and i want to say very clearly not any federal dollar to pay for abortion. we don't necessarily like that but we agree with that. that is the hyde amendment. and the stupak amendment and the nelson amendment and the samet go well be
the medicare s.g.r. payment system for physicians and for other purposes. h.r. 4154, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to repeal the new carrier overbasis rules in order to prevent tax increases, and so forth and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president, i would object to further proceedings in respect to these two bills. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bills will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: mr. president, visiting with nevadans as i have done during these past several weeks, it's impossible not to be motivated to get back to the business of legislating. it's impossible to ignore their grief over growing foreclosures, the uncertainty of unemployment, and the frustration of fighting insurance companies for your family's health, and it's just as evident that the people of nevada and the nation need us to work toward sensible solutions rather than drown once again in the partisan bickering that consumed much of last year. some elections go your way. some elections go the other way. it's the nature of democratic politics in a very diver
there with social security and medicare, and we are meeting with the members on every, at the caucus and different groups of the caucus to add here to halladay receive the best way to go, how they would prefer to go forward. but, we will go forward. so with that i would be pleased to take any questions. >> the message from massachusetts seems to be they want to go into more, voters want to go in a more moderate directions. are you going to make any effort to tell republicans their welcome at the table and you think they would come? >> they are always welcome at the table. we have a responsibility always to find common ground. the number of hearings that were held to write these bills in three committees practically, one-third of congress and the house participated in those hearings in a bipartisan way and in many cases some of those republican amendments were adopted, but they had made it clear that they are not for health care reform, and we are coming in so to the extent we can find common ground between those two differences is, remains to be seen but always welcome. the message from massachuse
the deficit, cover the uninsured, and strengthen medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. [applause] let me know. let me know. [applause] i am eager to see it. here is what i ask congress though. don't walk away from reform. not now. not when we are so close. let us find a way together and finish the job for the american people. [applause] let's get it done. let's get it done. now, even as health care reform would reduce our deficit, it is not enough to dig us out of a massive fiscal hole in which we find ourselves. it is a challenge that makes all the others that much harder to solve. and come up one that is then subject to a lot of political posturing. so, let me start the discussion of government spending by setting the record straight. at the beginning of the last decade, the year 2000, america had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. by the time i took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, to tax cuts and an expensive prescription
to driven and consumer -- driven patients entered health care. we should be looking at the medicare trust fund and the pressures that on how that trust fund. the ballooning costs of medicaid. if we move to a public auction. as a move into the health care reform or even from my state the lessons should have been learned from tenor who care which was the test case for hillary clinton care in '94, my states still has this, it is the greatest public health failure in the country. that would be a great opportunity for us to look at what is affecting us with health care. certainly there are more pressing issues fell. we are appreciative of your time to be before us today in fall we all are concerned with leaching chemicals that come from plastics into bottled water, we are, indeed, very concerned with what we see what has suppressed during evidence from a speech to employees and are concerned with what we've seen, health care issues that are affecting all of our constituents and a lack of willingness to address those in in a patient's center consumer driven manner and i yield back my time. >> t
in the last several years has far acceded the -- exceeded the growth of medicare and social security and it's crowding out our ability to fund medicare and social security t.'s a threat to those programs as well as the long-term fiscal status of our country. finally, i would just point out, madam president, that i just left a budget committee hearing, and mr. elmendorf, the c.b.o. director, testified this number today and indicated to us that if several more things that probably are likely to occur, occur -- which he did not use in his calculations the number here would be much worse, much higher. he says we are facing a critical economically threatening force of debt that we have got to do better about. and so did chairman conrad and so did ranking member gregg in their opening statements. i would point out that he reaffirmed their score that under the present path we are on, we now pay in 2009, $170 billion per year in interest. that's what we pay on people who loaned us money. the public debt. by 2019, ten years, that debt will triple from $5.7 trillion to over $17 trillion. and the inte
. king stale, and the federal employees health benefits program. the advantage program, medicare part b systems of switzerland and other lands, arguably also germany also contains many elements of an exchange. the health alliances and around which the clinton health plan was bills were exchanges appear, as were in our state base and private purchasing cooperatives which have been tried repeatedly and sometimes with success over the past two decades. connecticut business and industry association represented here today one represents a successful private purchasing cooperative. of course, while each of these models can be called an exchange, they are, in fact, quite different. indeed, the models represented by the house and senate bills are different in very significant ways. the focus of my paper and of my brief presentation this morning is on how the house and senate bills differ and on which model is most likely to result in the exchange spenser's past the goals that an exchange is intended to fulfill. first, quickly let me ask the question, why do we need exchange? what do we expected
, it appears that their cost per patient as compared to medicare is about two-thirds, all right? this is a triple winner. open up the va to vets who can use their medicare entitlement. not only that, open it up to their wives. let them buy into the system. it not only makes clinical sense but but an 80-year-old veterans has got comorbidity and they both will have to learn to take care of each other but it makes financial sense because everybody you get off medicare to the va you saved maybe about a third. and patient satisfaction is incredibly high. so that's my case for what we ought to do, not just abouthxz agent orange situation but getting our veterans right in general. thank you. [applause] >> well, thank you, everyone for your remarks. i want to open it up to questions in a minute but i want to ask a few myself.g6v and the first is that it seems like both in vietnam and in the united states -- this is sort of the theme that kind of emerged as we were doing our research and editing the package, what you run into is the limits of science when trying to craft public policy ei
of the provisions. the closing of the donut hole. that is how much people on medicare have to pay out-of-pocket for their medication. we want to close that gap, so people don't have to pay that much. we do it in the house of representatives. so that was the think a lot of the conversation, so it is not sip yet. was do we covered a town hall meeting with congress to packin michigan. you talk a lot about his amendment on abortion, part of the house legislation. did that come up plus side and what is the fate of that abortion language? >> guest: it did. the pro-choice caucus, which i am part of, which has well over 100 members in the house of representatives, and wide support certainly throughout the country for reproductive health care being part of any package. it came up last night in the context of those of us who are pro-choice, believe that we ought to stick with the status quo, which says and i want to say it very clearly, not any federal dollars to pay for abortions. we don't necessarily like that but we agree with that. that is the hyde amendment. and the stupack amendment, and
s we got medicare and medicaid. so there have been moments in our history when the people and their desires and their anguish over the situation has broken through, and then we got legislation that moved away from the traditional class, upper-class legislation of the government. but it's extremely important to understand this conflict of interest between government and us. otherwise, you would think, and the young guy going off to war while the, well, wish this interest was the same as mine. it's not. no one is excellent interests the same as mine. nor halliburton's interest is the same as mine. know. that's a very important thing to learn. i think from history. and when you learn, when you study the history of the united states, you do not see the kind of country that we all learn about when we go to school, which is a kind of america. we're not different by the way than other country. countries everywhere teach their history and a nationalist way. they are all prideful of their flag and their anthem, and you know, their history. and the united states is no different. exc
, we don't have one. we have a quasi system of medicare and medicaid, half of all government expenditures paid for by the government -- half of health care expenditures. to put it simply they involve massive subsidization of everybody and keep the prius below what they would pay in a market. what happens is is elementary. if you subsidize something you get more of it. once you get more to get big explosion in demand and eventually the government has to put a cap on that and then you get rid of rationing and when that happens you get lines and who is going to go to the top-of-the-line? i will tell you, we know this and have this, people like me with connections, people who are knowledgeable, the king gave the system. will go to the bottom? look at poor west virginians. so if you want to be fair this is not a curse system. now, to do this we would have to talk about what a feasible alternative, real market based insurance would look like. he wanted to talk about that? >> yes please. >> we have to compare two alternative because is not fair to look in a system and say it has a p
have a clause i system of his. we have medicare and medicaid. half of all health care expenditures. if you look at those programs, basic to put us in the, they everybody. and keep the price below what they would pay any market player and what happened to sort of elementary. you subsidize something, get more of the. once you get more of it, you get a big explosion to man. and eventually, the government has to put a cap on that and then you get government rationing. when that happens you get lines. and who is going to go to the top of the line? i will tell you who will go to the top of the line. people like me. people with connection, people who are knowledgeable, people who can game the system. is going to go to the bottom of the line? i live in west virginia. poured west virginians. if you want to be fair, this is not a fair system. now, to do this, we would need to talk about what a feasible alternative, what a real market-based insurance would look like. do you want me to talk about that? >> yes, please. >> we have to compare because it's not fair to just look at one system. just
. medicare, medicaid, social security. these programs that are the safety net for our country. he talked about the capping student loan fees for payback. he talked about our children being able to go into the community colleges that everyone has a right to good education. he talked about having to pay the t.a.r.p., the temporary aid so that people could have their loans restructured, and those that were in foreclosure could sit down with the bankers and have the loans restructured. he talked about the everyday man and woman of america having a job. he talked about our responsibility, and let's agree to stop disagreeing and come together on things that we can all approve of. he talked about our nation not to be number two but number one. so i mean who could disagree with that? and there was nothing that he said that i really found disagreeable. >> now, we've all been reading about tension between house democrats and the obama administration. what are your thoughts? >> he said tonight that he was going to be talking not only to democrats but republicans, too. and if you have a better idea
social security and medicare and workers' rights and a long series of legislative victories which in my view has substantially improved the quality of living. >> host: thank you. michelle malkin? >> guest: well, i don't define the success of a party or the gauge its effect on americans' lives by what it has given legislatively. and i think is a core fundamental belief of my and i think a party that has improved my life is a party that leaves me alone, that has constrained the power of government to interfere in our lives, and unfortunately, and i've been very vocal about this, i think the republican party has failed to live up to its core conservative principles and so many ways. this was -- this was the battle so many grassroots conservatives had with the bush administration over the years whether it was the expansion of the federal role in education with a note child left behind act, the prescription drug plan, the pushing illegal alien amnesty and then the last several months of the bush tenure doing what i consider was pre-socializing the economy for barack obama with these massive
security, medicare, minimum wage, at 40 hour week and civil-rights act and voting rights act. that is what made the united states a beacon of hope in a confused and divided world. too many people take for granted government's role as protector of wall street and the privilege. they see middle-class americans as overpaid, and underworked. they see social security as a problem rather than the only piece of our retirement system that actually works. day -- they fail to see the connections and in a quality and homelessness. the world view has brought democrats nothing but disaster. they offered middle-class the false hope of tax cuts. tax cuts and up enriching the rich, devastating the middle class by destroying the institutions like public education and the social security that makes the middle class possible. are you trying to tell me something? [laughter] >> we are now with our ku and a point*. >> i am not done with what i have to say. [applause] >> it has been 25 minutes and we will start. >> did you wrap up in 30 seconds? >> i can wrap up in a couple minutes working people have been waiti
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 76 (some duplicates have been removed)